Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
apologies sasha, I must need glasses.
I looked at that multiple times and still saw robins name as the author. his is the name of the post above.
you are correct, I was commenting on your post, and reading robin's name for the above post to it. my sincerest apologies for my mix up on that. apologies to robin for attributing your comment to him to if that has offended him.
so I was saying your idea was a hypothesis as yet un proven,
you may go back to being offended by that. -
and then you claim that you were talking about someone else's ideas.
no, I was addressing robin, directly, I quoted his text.
robin said**I** think I've already more than adequately
implying he thought it was his idea. The link goes to your post where you address something robin said. I'm not addressing ownership of that idea, I'm directly addressing robins use of it, and I did it politely with out calling anyone an idiot or swearing, what's the problem?
I'm not taking my frustrations out on anyone at the moment sasha,
one of us is being erratic and disrespectful,as to following this thread, or copyright in general, come on, its always been a difficult and twisted business, you blame anyone who gets lost in it?? even the lawyers have trouble with it.
I get your point, but I disagree, I don't hate you for having you're own opinion,
-
Only in circumstances where that to which you claim copyright is unique and truly original. That is to say it bears no reference, similariity or suffers no other point of origin than the creators mind. Which in musical terms would require an extraordinary standard of proof.
yep that's true, I had a job that required the originality test reguarding someones input into a track. the track was sent away to graeme downes for analysis to determine to what degree the track had been changed. This is quite common in sound alike tracks used for adverts where the client wants a song that sounds like say pink floyd but doesn't want to pay or can't afford the high end rates. the commission an artist to record something similar to but significantly different from the track they had in mind. mostly its close enough to get the desired effect by emulating the style of the artists which doesn't seem to be a copyrightable feature, just words and notes.
sometimes they make it too close to the original and get themselves in trouble.
The people who decide how close are people like graeme, acknowledged musical experts, but its certainly no cut and dry science. a large patch of grey in the middle. -
So if you say something it's a fact, and if I do it's a hypothesis.
well I wasn't speaking to you in that instance sasha, but robin has trundled out as accepted fact a few things which aren't. I think this is one of them. sorry to offend you by disagreeing with you,
and my disagreement is valid. just because it isn't a high priced selling item doesn't mean a different set of laws should apply. yes it is more valuable if its popular, but because it is in a cupboard not getting air time doesn't mean its not property. its a diversion issue,
and sasha i'm managing to be polite to you, how bout you lose the agro attitude to me.
-
I think I've already more than adequately raised one difference - that creative capital is contributed by both creator and audience,
you've put forward an idea, a hypothesis , one that hasn't been agreed with, hence not adequately raising a valid difference at all.
the audience or lack of it has nothing to do with the right to control what happens to your creative work. just the extent or not of its value, which islander doesn't consider a key factor in the control of her characters or me in my recorded works.
so we're back to no difference between these kinds of property.
-
building upon items in the (ahem) "collective consciousness" already. It would make me sad to see artists unable to tap into that huge resource.
you can tap into the collective consciousness in order to inspire your originality any time you like, nothings stopping you.
the collection of all recorded sound is not your private sound effects archive though, but any of the ideas in it are completely available for you to do your own versions of. the only thing thats holding you back is you and your wallet. -
ps mark if it makes you feel any better I was discussing in public why some people have this hatred of the feelers and op shop because they see them as being derivative and the guitarist from op shop who I don't really know was sitting right next to the person I was talking to.
still not in your league though. -
That's the situation as it stands. I don't have to prove anything.
you have to prove why it is the situation as it stands.
remember simon's slaves are property cos they are comment. this is the same thing. things aren't what they are cos they are, that's not enough, they have to be argued to be what they are for a reason.at the moment there is no reason or none that has been forwarded that is consistent with how we treat other property.
the property were talking about is not the idea of the song which you are free to do your own version of from day one, but the recorded work as paid for by someone who is not you.
I won't mention bone people, for a little while anyway.
-
The guilty until proven innocent theory? Nice.
I don't think that's the meaning of what he's saying.
he's saying under current conditions the onus is on copyright holders to inforce their rights.
perhaps he's looking for a little more help, perhaps not as much help as prosecution without proof, somewhere inbetween? -
From what campbell is saying he feels people are expecting the industry sort it out, without giving them the power to realistically do it. a team effort might help.